This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2006-11-02 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It must be stressed that P.D. No. 957 was enacted with no other end in view than to provide a protective mantle over helpless citizens who may fall prey to the manipulations and machinations of unscrupulous subdivision and condominium sellers.[33] It was issued in the wake of numerous reports that many real estate subdivision owners, developers, operators and/or sellers have reneged on their representations and obligations to provide and maintain properly subdivision roads, drainage, sewerage, water systems, lighting systems, and other basic requirements for the health and safety of home and lot buyers.[34] Such intent of the law is nowhere expressed more clearly than in its preamble, the pertinent portion of which reads:WHEREAS, it is the policy of the State to afford its inhabitants the requirements of decent human settlement and to provide them with ample opportunities for improving their quality of life; | |||||
|
2005-07-29 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| (b) The Subic Special Economic Zone shall be operated and managed as a separate customs territory ensuring free flow or movement of goods and capital within, into and exported out of the Subic Special Economic Zone, as well as provide incentives such as tax and duty-free importations of raw materials, capital and equipment. However, exportation or removal of goods from the territory of the Subic Special Economic Zone to the other parts of the Philippine territory shall be subject to customs duties and taxes under the Customs and Tariff Code and other relevant tax laws of the Philippines.[13] While it is true that Section 12 (b) of Republic Act No. 7227 mentions only raw materials, capital and equipment, this does not necessarily mean that the tax and duty-free buying privilege is limited to these types of articles to the exclusion of consumer goods. It must be remembered that in construing statutes, the proper course is to start out and follow the true intent of the Legislature and to adopt that sense which harmonizes best with the context and promotes in the fullest manner the policy and objects of the Legislature.[14] | |||||
|
2004-06-04 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| SO ORDERED.[15] In finding for SSHA, the appellate court relied upon Eugenio v. Exec. Sec. Drilon,[16] which held that while P.D. No. 957 did not expressly provide for its retroactive application, nonetheless, it can be plainly inferred from its intent that it was to be given retroactive effect so as to extend its coverage even to those contracts executed prior to its effectivity in 1976. The Court of Appeals also held that the action was neither barred by prescription nor laches as the obligation of a subdivision developer to provide an open space is not predicated upon an oral contract, but mandated by law, hence, an action may be brought within ten (10) years from the time the right of action accrues under Article 1144[17] of the Civil Code. Moreover, the equitable principle of laches will not apply when the claim was filed within the reglementary period. | |||||
|
2004-06-04 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| This petition was brought to us not by respondent SSHA but by Gloria Santos Dueñas who assails the appellate court's finding that our ruling in Eugenio v. Exec. Sec. Drilon[29] allows P.D. No. 957, as amended, to apply retroactively. | |||||